Allowed

P.Pandian v. the Joint Commissioner of

Madras HC24 Mar 2025WP(MD)/897/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Gratuity claimant's claim was rejected for want of jurisdiction as it was based on 'better terms of gratuity' rather than the Payment of Gratuity Act. Following a Full Bench decision that the Controlling Authority may adjudicate such claims, the High Court quashed the appellate order and remitted the matter for adjudication on merits within three months.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders quashed; matter remitted to Assistant Commissioner of Labour for merits adjudication within three months; liberty to reinitiate proceedings; no costs.

P.Pandian Vs the Joint Commissioner of — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2025)

¶1

W.P.(MD) No.897 of 2017

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 24.03.2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR

¶6

W.P.(MD) No.897 of 2017 and W.M.P.(MD) No.744 of 2017

P.Pandian

... Petitioner

Vs.

1.The Joint Commissioner of Labour, Tiruchirappalli, Tiruchirappalli District.

¶11

2.The Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Office of the Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Dindigul.

¶12

3.The Special Officer, Dindigul Central Co-operative Bank Ltd., Kootturavu Nagar, Trichy Road, Dindigul.

¶13

... Respondents

¶14

Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to

¶15

issue a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records pertaining to the impugned

¶16

_________Page 1 of 6

¶17

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶18

W.P.(MD) No.897 of 2017

¶19

orders passed by the 1^st respondent in P.G.A.No.16 of 2013 dated 28.10.2014 conforming the order passed by the 2^nd respondent in P.G.I.A.No.45 of 2012

¶20

in P.G.No.29 of 2011 dated 24.12.2012 and quash the same.

¶21

For Petitioner : Mr.V.O.S.Kalaiselvam

¶22

For Respondents : Mr.A.Baskaran Additional Govt. Pleader – for RR1 & 2 : Mr.D.Shanmugaraja Sethupathi

¶23

ORDER

¶24

This writ petition has been filed aggrieved by an order passed by

¶25

the first respondent rejecting the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order passed in the interlocutory application filed in the payment of gratuity case filed by the petitioner.

¶26

The facts of the case are that the petitioner in this writ petition

¶27

approached Respondent No.2 claiming for payment of gratuity against Respondent No.3. In the said claim, Respondent No.3-Management filed an application contending that the Controlling Authority, that is, Respondent No.

¶28

_________Page 2 of 6

¶29

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶30

W.P.(MD) No.897 of 2017

¶31

2 has no authority to adjudicate the matter, as the gratuity that is being claimed by the petitioner is not in terms of the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 but in terms of the “better terms of gratuity”. The said interlocutory application was allowed by Respondent No.2 holding that Respondent No.2-Controlling Authority can only entertain a claim for payment of gratuity in terms of the provisions contained in the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. The appeal filed there against by the petitioner herein before Respondent No.1-Appellate Authority was also dismissed on the very same ground of jurisdiction without adjudicating the matter on merits. It is aggrieved by the said order passed by Respondent No.1-Appellate Authority, the petitioner approached this Court by filing the present writ petition.

¶32

When the matter is taken up for consideration, it is brought to the notice of this Court by the learned counsel on either side that the issue as to the jurisdiction of the Controlling Authority to adjudicate the claims made for payment of gratuity otherwise than under the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act fell for consideration in a batch of writ appeals before a learned Full Bench of this Court and the learned Full Bench has concluded that the

¶33

_________Page 3 of 6

¶34

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶35

W.P.(MD) No.897 of 2017

¶36

Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 can also adjudicate the claims made for payment of gratuity otherwise than under the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act in W.A.No.4452 of 2013 etc., dated 30^th October, 2024. Thus, now it is settled that the Controlling Authority can entertain claims made for payment of gratuity otherwise than under the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 also.

¶37

Thus, in the light of the decision of the Hon'ble Full Bench referred to above, the impugned order cannot be sustained and accordingly, the same is hereby quashed and the matter is remitted back to Respondent No.2 for adjudicating the claim made by the petitioner on merits and in accordance with law. Consdering the fact that the matter is pending before this Court for all these years, Respondent No.2 is directed to adjudicate and conclude the claim proceedings as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The petitioner is also granted liberty to approach the Controlling Authority for reinitiation of the proceedings as directed.

¶38

_________Page 4 of 6

¶39

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶40

W.P.(MD) No.897 of 2017

¶41

Accordingly, this Writ Petition is allowed. There shall be no

¶42

order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶43

24.03.2025

¶44

NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes

¶45

ABR

¶46

¶47

1.The Joint Commissioner of Labour, Tiruchirappalli, Tiruchirappalli District.

¶48

2.The Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Office of the Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Dindigul.

¶49

Page 5 of 6

¶50

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶51

W.P.(MD) No.897 of 2017

¶52

MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR, J.

¶53

ABR

¶54

W.P.(MD) No.897 of 2017

¶55

24.03.2025

¶56

_________Page 6 of 6

¶57

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

P.Pandian v. the Joint Commissioner of

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.Pandian v. the Joint Commissioner of

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Tamilnadu Civil Supplies Vs Tamilnadu Civil Supplies

M/s.Srimad Andavan Arts and Science College Vs Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner (Pdc)

M/s. Sun (Tamil Nadu) Management Services Private Limited Vs The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner

C.Ramarasu Vs the Joint Commissioner of

P.Chandrakala Vs The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner - II

V.Subramaniyan Vs The District Collector